From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="eG6QFjin" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF162123 for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2023 16:49:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F42736D6C; Sun, 26 Nov 2023 19:49:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=FfcekrOfCUUgJkxQiI59EWPSFpZ3JS0VmpoiGN f9ezE=; b=eG6QFjinI2SammIPdFprRPHrD4Ovi6iNT8MGwopuGwYhA/3TGwI0mH cXUwkKv0a0N9JHq3QpGviRUDJmQnqf6c3Kw9RdM1GMWlk0VaqIz3DP9pitxDNd7z bxmQ6eGwHvBUpz5WyOqqgieP1bT/qV57lulg6Gb+RsW5hhIOlC3nw= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9895036D6B; Sun, 26 Nov 2023 19:49:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.108.217]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F9B136D69; Sun, 26 Nov 2023 19:49:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Josh Soref Cc: Elijah Newren , Josh Soref via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Eric Sunshine Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Switch links to https In-Reply-To: (Josh Soref's message of "Fri, 24 Nov 2023 11:03:10 -0500") References: Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 09:49:20 +0900 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: CDFE8E5A-8CBE-11EE-B270-A19503B9AAD1-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Josh Soref writes: > Elijah Newren wrote: >> As stated elsewhere, I'd be fine with using the archived link if the >> justification presented in the series for using archived links was >> consistent and mentioned both reasons for changes. But, I think this >> series is fine to merge down as-is if you don't want to go through the >> trouble. Especially given how long you've waited. > > I'm clearly still contributing, so I can come back later and cross > that bridge... > >> Anyway, I checked through every link in this series; it all looks good to me. > > Let's take this as-is. Thanks for taking the time to re-check every > link, I know exactly how tedious that is :). Thanks, both. Will queue.